Wissa v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2014] EWHC 1518 (QB) (14 May 2014)

Wissa v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2014] EWHC 1518 (QB) (14 May 2014)

The claim was struck out because the Particulars of Claim failed to set out with reasonable certainty the precise words complained of, as required in libel actions. The identification of the article by URL and title was insufficient due to multiple versions and lack of clarity as to the exact words. The pleaded meanings were not capable of being borne by the articles before the court. The claim disclosed no reasonable grounds and was an abuse of process.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 1518
Parties
Claimant: Dr Atef Halim Wissa; Defendant: Associated Newspapers Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Libel Action (defamation) / Application to Strike Out Claim Under CPR 3.4(2)(a) And/or (b)
Outcome
Claim struck out
Legal Topics
Libel, Pleading Requirements, Strike Out Applications, Meaning in Defamation, Practice Direction 53, CPR 16.4
Defamation Civil Procedure Libel Pleading Requirements Strike Out Applications Meaning in Defamation Practice Direction 53 CPR 16.4

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Atef Halim Wissa

Claimant

Associated Newspapers Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Action (defamation) / Application to Strike Out Claim Under CPR 3.4(2)(a) And/or (b)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Particulars of Claim sufficiently identify the words complained of in a libel action
  2. 2 Whether the claim discloses reasonable grounds for bringing the claim
  3. 3 Whether the claim is an abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was struck out because the Particulars of Claim failed to set out with reasonable certainty the precise words complained of, as required in libel actions. The identification of the article by URL and title was insufficient due to multiple versions and lack of clarity as to the exact words. The pleaded meanings were not capable of being borne by the articles before the court. The claim disclosed no reasonable grounds and was an abuse of process.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out

Orders

  • Claim struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(a) and/or (b)
  • Claimant given opportunity to apply to amend within a specified time if so advised